Especially since the argument isn't even "this is a useless class", but rather "this is a class that promotes a political message we don't approve of." This is the very basic definition of censorship.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Printable View
Especially since the argument isn't even "this is a useless class", but rather "this is a class that promotes a political message we don't approve of." This is the very basic definition of censorship.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
You make it sound like this doesn't frequently happen. Imagine if you will a class that taught about how bad black people are and how segregation was the way things were supposed to be. Do you think the state should pay for that kind of class as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I would certainly disagree with a university's decision to offer such a "class" but the decision should ultimately be left to the university, not to legislators. A university that offered such a class would probably have to deal with a great deal of negative feedback and negative PR, experience increased difficulties enrolling good students and attracting good academics, risk losing private funding and probably have to spend more money dealing with protests. Not exactly a winning proposition. It would sort itself out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Interesting comparison btw. I'm not surprised to learn that you find the problematization of race relations as disturbing as the promotion of segregationism.
I'm not surprised you make outrageous logical leaps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I understand the utility of the comparison, which is why I did not claim that the comparison is invalid for the purposes of this discussion. I just think it's also an interesting insight into your psyche.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Nice strawman, as usual. It's not the state's role to decide what kind of political message is acceptable. That job is up to the university. Any attempt by the government to pick which courses should not be taught is censorship. Your party is engaging in censorship. Instead of condemning it, you're using a the Russian "whataboutism" strategy. Except, there is no real liberal parallel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I hope you understand that burning a few copies of those books isn't going to make them unread. I wish I could get back the time I wasted reading them. That's also not gonna happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Indeed I'm sure if a rival college was teaching a "problem with blackness" course then we'd have no criticism of that whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Please reread the bits about the state's role.
I read it, I just disagreed with the conclusion. There are plenty of laws where legislatures dictate what can and can't be taught in state-funding education. Take evolution versus divine creationism. The state (rightly) insists on teaching evolution.
As someone who's taught in two states, I can assure you that you're wrong. The most a legislature gets involved in a college curriculum is requiring a course covering the politics and/or history of that state. The fact that creationism isn't taught (in bio departments; it is in theology) is because bio faculties don't propose it and the curriculum committee wouldn't approve it.
Please guide us through your reasoning there.
Rand, I take it you don't know the difference between schools and universities?
Indeed. I had one professor who was very keen on arguing that Climate Science was a sham.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
He then proceeded to immediately disqualify himself because he also argued that Einstein was a*moron (everything in Physics after Newton was to be derided, in fact).
Later on I discovered a paper of his, bent on disproving the Greenhouse Effect. No, not the anthropogenic part of it. The whole effect.
A more important distinction might be between the legal status of distasteful opinions in general vs. that of religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
..are you talking about school or university here? :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
I sincerely hope he wasn't a physics prof.
In general though he has a point that if we don't want interference like this, we should also accept, say, conservative or Christian universities from getting funding regardless of what they are teaching (assuming they are in line with other criteria). Is that the case in the USA?
I think you have a fairly simplistic and misguided notion of what advantages a free market offers. It certainly does not mean that private organizations, companies, or individuals are immune from making bad decisions. It doesn't protect us from idiotic construction choices, or offer perfect solutions to complex problems. That is not the claim. Free markets offer choices, encourage innovation, and allow for failure. Problems aren't fixed by virtue of decisions made by private actors, problems are fixed because there are consequences for not fixing them, there are alternatives if they don't get fixed, and there is reward for doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
I am actually sympathetic to this argument. I don't particularly like the idea of politicians determining what political beliefs are or are not acceptable for state employees. It makes me uncomfortable, to say the least. It makes me less uncomfortable when the speech in question is coming from a person performing their job in their official capacity. A teacher who is paid to teach biology should not then decide they want to teach creationism. Likewise if a public school decided they wanted the curriculum to include creationism, I would have few problems with funding being withheld from that school.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I don't care what is being taught in universities, but I also don't believe universities should receive public funding. If a school accepts public funding then for better or worse they also accept the strings that come along with it.
I am curious as to where this same outrage is when police officers are fired for privately sharing questionable content, and doing so in an unofficial capacity.
Loki, is this a case of liberals blatantly attacking free speech?
Theoretical Physics. This guy here in fact: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhar...ich_(Physiker)Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
And all too often, the ones doing the fixing are not the ones who caused the whole mess in the first place. And the ones who caused those catastrophes walk away scot free with a wad of cash in their pockets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
If those CEOs were held personally responsible for the catastrophic damages done, you could be sure as hell that none of that shit would have ever had happened.
We're seeing that with VW over here (just like you did with your banks, BP and the others) - none of the managers are in jail, yes, they may be out of a job but, hey, the golden parachute makes sure that they're leading very comfortable lives.
I don't think I'd necessarily dispute anything you wrote there. I take a fairly dim opinion of most C level executives in major companies, and would doubt that many of them are receiving pay commensurate to their value to the company. I too would encourage companies to move away from pay packages with golden parachutes, and I'm not opposed to them facing criminal charges when and if it is appropriate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
There was a physics professor at Illinois (top 10 program in the country) who kept on giving talks on creationism...Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
BS. Telling colleges which classes not to teach is not part of the strings attached.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Are you seriously equating making racist comments with teaching a course approved by the university? Seriously? The police officer is getting fired for doing something that any private sector equivalent worker would get fired for.Quote:
I am curious as to where this same outrage is when police officers are fired for privately sharing questionable content, and doing so in an unofficial capacity.
Loki, is this a case of liberals blatantly attacking free speech?
No I believe he's sanctioning racist comments with actually sanctioning a racist course. The fact the racist course has been approved by the university is the controversy not just the fact it was taught once approved. Again I'd like to see any equivalent "problems with blackness" course sanctioned in the 21st century.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I think people who have their hand out typically have very little say over what strings come attached.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
So as long as racism and racist courses are university approved then any attempt to remove public funding is violating free speech. However, if a public sector employee makes racist comments as a private citizen, and not in their official capacity, then they should definitely lose their job, is that right? You don't see the contradiction here?Quote:
Are you seriously equating making racist comments with teaching a course approved by the university? Seriously? The police officer is getting fired for doing something that any private sector equivalent worker would get fired for.
That is not an equivalent example. A more equivalent example would be for the government to withdraw funding from every police department in the US for engaging in racist practices. This is instead an example of a single individual showing himself to be singularly unfit by doing things that clearly undermine the public's trust in both him and his employer. That said, there is one similarity. The legislature does not generally go around threatening to defund police departments unless they fire specific people. They can exert other forms of pressure but in the end it's left to the discretion of those who're directly in charge of the police's employment-related decisions.
Bullshit. Show me one Police department in the USA running a public and overt "problem with blackness" seminar please.
If any were then damn right the legislature should get involved.
Maybe you should take a closer look at the seminar in question and then take a close look at the real racism endorsed by American police before saying extremely stupid things RB. Then again you were pretty clueless about the problem of racism in US law enforcement the last time we tried to have this discussion so maybe there's just no point in trying again.
People who don't agree with you are not clueless. Find me an equivalently racist "problems with blackness" seminar and we can talk again.